Transparency: A History of Gay Marriage Bans

Is it?

Why would you want to uphold a ban on equality?

It really should not matter whether or not gay people(A HA!) are married.        

I believe in civil unions that would give gay couples the civil rights afforded hetrosexuals.  I do not believe that we need to change the definition of marriage.

If I’m not mistaken, in the United States a heterosexual couple may marry via the powers of the state and, if they so choose, do so through a religious ceremony.  However, no religious marriage ceremony is recognized without the power of the state behind it.  So calling the recognition of a dedicated relationship a “civil union” or a ”marriage” is either a matter of semantics or the overlay of religious dogma on a state power.  Either way; can someone explain to me, without invoking religious doctrine, why homosexual couples should not be afforded the same civil right?

The definition of marriage has been redefined throughout history and we are living in a time that should allow for open minded and level thinking for equal rights for all.  

Marriage, was created and defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.  That is truth.  And it is, as has been proven over and over, the view of the majority in this country. 

“If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me.” - Matthew 19:21http://www.redcross.org/or perhaps you’re only interested in following the god’s law when it mirrors your own thoughts.

“Marriage, was created and defined by God as a union between a man and a woman.  That is truth.  And it is, as has been proven over and over, the view of the majority in this country. ”WOW! that is really telling..(It was poorly worded, so I may have read it wrong)You believe that god’s will, is voiced through the votes of the people..So god at one point SUPPORTED slavery?and sorry, but other peoples’ gods define marriage differently, You don’t have the monopoly in the god making business.

The funny thing is, is that religion is supposed to be all about love and peace and forgiveness etc. etc..Read all these posts and all the hatred involved in this discussion. If anyone can give me a rational reason why gay’s can’t get married than I would be, and a lot of people on this post, open to hearing it. (And god telling you marriage is between a man and a woman is not a rational reason.)

Why is the church’s definition of marriage being used as law?  Where is separation of church and state here?  Is not the church, which serves God, entitled to its own definition of marriage; and the state, which serves the people, entitled to a definition that protects and honors the rights of its citizens?  Legalizing gay marriage is about equal opportunity, not forcing the church to change. 

Barring the basic premise that marriage legalizes the union between a man and a woman around the globe, and barring hermaphroditic states, biologically every species, plant and animal, on the planet “mate” in some fashion to produce a likeness of itself in the normal propagation of its genes.  Why do gay people want to get in on that since they obviously, and by choice, cannot?  Maybe they should call such a union “Faking-It” and design a legal system for that which would then be of their own preferences.

I agree that there should be a separation of church and stateregarding the definition of marriage.  However as it is now, if gay marriage were to be legalized, and a church refused toperform or recognize such marriages, then that church loses certain rights (i.e. tax exemptions).  Why should gay marriagebe allowed to remove those rights?  I’m not opposed to people choosingto live how they want.  I am opposed to the laws in place that wouldpunish those that don’t choose to recognize gay marriage if/when it does become legalized. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the constitution also provides for freedom or religious choice as well.

Let’s not overlook that California, Colorado, D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington offer either civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other forms of legal recognition for same-sex spouces.  

Addressing the fear that gay marriage will tramp on religious rights, legislative measures can be taken to grant churches exemption from performing marriages they don’t wish to recognize while the state can grant the legal benefits of gay couples in a marriage contract.  Just look at whats going on in New Hampshire (H.B. 73).  And on the flip side – how about those churches that are active in blessing gay unions.  In Arkansas, where gay marriage was banned, the Episcipal and UU churches both do so.  Why deny the followers of these faiths their religious freedom?

“…if gay marriage were to be legalized, and a church refused to perform or recognize such marriages, then that church loses certain rights (i.e. tax exemptions) …”I think you are mistaken.  Has preventing women from being ordained stripped the Church of it’s tax-exempt status?  The Church is a privately run institution receiving no direct monies from the Federal Government.  Likewise, it not paying taxes keeps it from being indebted to the Federal Government.”Maybe they should call such a union “Faking-It” and design a legal system for that which would then be of their own preferences.”This isn’t a discussion about mating, this is a discussion about marriage.  I don’t believe procreation is a requirement to marry; nor vice versa.I’m still interested in reading a sound argument – one that does not invoke religious doctrine – for the position against homosexual couple being allowed to marry.

Wow, what a poorly done info-graphic. Somewhere there’s a designer in need of some Tufte readin’

To add to the “civil” section on the 2009 map, Nevada’s legislature over-rode a veto on domestic partnerships on Saturday, making the state the 17th in the country to recognize some sort of spousal rights for gay couples.

There needs to be a nationwide decision on this. Otherwise, we’ll have couples who are married in some states, but not in others, restricting where they can and cannot live/work/travel if they want to keep their relationship/rights. I’m waiting for a new version of the Dred Scott case to hit the Supreme Court, only with marriage as the issue instead of slavery.

btw, Gov. Lynch just signed gay marriage into law in New Hampshire today!

OK, for the people that disagree with the whole premise based on religous doctrine. I whole-heartedly agree. Can we all get together to oppose…murderers marrying? How about Satanists? Let’s ban all breakers of the 10 commandments from the covenent. What??? Oh, some of you have broken those??? Never mind.

Read about William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King’s motivations before accusing all religious people of backing slavery. There were religious folks as well as non religious new york business people who gained from the cotton trade. Don’t paint everyone with one brush. Co-relation does not imply causality. To say that gay marriage is good means you’re making assumptions about an absolute moral law. This is the same thing religious people do. They invoke God, you invoke what makes sense to you. To say they can’t invoke God is hardly something you’d do if you were acting in a spirit of equality. Religious people can make mistakes. If you think non religious people are morally superior, take a close look at Stalin and Lennin.America is prosperous and relatively peaceful compared to the rest of the world. So it’s easy to believe that everyone is inherently good and altruistic. But this idea that we can be immune from corruption is the very kind of thinking that makes us vulnerable to it. Single parent families, abuse, pornography, wife swapping, poligamy, child abuse, divorce, absentee fathers, selfishness, sex with little to no commitment, objectification of men and women, brutality: The long term trends for all of these seem to be growing. A lot of this is legal by the way. Is it an ideal to pursue? As the concept of family has almost completely dissolved from public consciousness and continues to erode, the long term effects on children of this particular form of change are unknown. There is an absolute moral law. We cannot break it-we only break ourselves against it. This is why we need to find and submit to the law giver. If we assume the role of law giver ourselves we’re not living in truth and reality will one day crush us.

i love these transparencies! my favorite part of your website, thx good!

b, “Gay Marriage” is neither good or bad. In the same way that “Heterosexual Marriage” is neither good or bad, it just is. Marriage is what the people in the relationship make of it. — Divorce is certainly not something anyone strives toward – and I am fairly confident saying that anyone that has been through one will not disagree – however, sometimes it’s better than the alternative of remaining in a marriage that is damaging. — Anyone is free to invoke G-d as they see fit; what they are not permitted to do is impose G-d on others. Again, in the same way that religious and non-religious peoples alike make mistakes, neither maintains the market on moral superiority. Both can be as moral or as immoral as their hearts see fit; morality is in the eye of the beholder. — The laws we are discussing here are civil laws, not religious. As you can see here, your fellow citizens are not in agreement as to the idea of an absolute moral law (or, perhaps, a single law-giver). That is the beauty of this country – freedom of beliefs that do not infringe on others’ rights. — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Genius.